About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
it's going to play out the doma case prop 8 case how two different cases how do you think doma case. >> doma case involves whether someone who had lived with domestic partner for 45 years should have to pay estate taxes where if they lived as husband and wife she would not have to pay estate taxes and prop 8 involves whether or not gay marriage is simply legal. i think what we are seeing here they only need four justices to decide whether to take the issue. i think there is a little bit of politics there because if obama appoints more justices, they are not going to have to get the issue before the court. i think expect that the court going to say that gay marriage is legal just as they said you couldn't ban racially mixed racial marriages and things of that sort. you know, husband and wife, man and woman does not appear in the constitution. it's more a policy or religious decision than a legal decision. legally i don't think they can ban it. >> laura: i clerked at the court quite a few years ago now back in 1993. but predicting what the court is going to do is always quite difficul
to take it up. many of us thought this is exactly what's going to happen with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question e could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states say the definition of marriage are. so it was crafted because it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro-gay so arguing towards the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck it down, that it leads to the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think they are going to do the right thing and strike it down. the
the doma case. gay marriage advocates who want the defense of marriage act struck down say doma creates a gay-only exception to federal recognition of state licensed marriages. and we believe that the federal government should stop discriminating against same sex couples legally married by their states. but defender of traditional marriage between one man and one woman say, quote: since president bill clinton signed doma into law, 30 states have followed suit by incorporating the definition of marriage into their constitutions. voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution. arguments on both cases are likely to be in march and rules likely in june. shep? >> shepard: we got another announcement from the supreme court today. it's going to take up another case that really could effect what we all pay for prescription drugs. >> right. this is about the battle between more expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generic drugs. some of the brand name companies pay the generic drug makers to keep cheaper drugs off store counters whi
with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different for reasons we can go into. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. then wash out the outliers like intraracial marriage did. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. it's a much more challenge. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states' definition of marriage are. in some ways it was crafted, it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro gay, so essentially toward the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck down the congressional statute that invariably leads the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think t
to consider choosing and two prop 8 ones. they have one doma and one prop 8. >> what's fascinating, this is a court that has avoided this issue. it's been pathological. everyone in lawrence v. texas, the opinion was distorted in my ways because of a clear effort not to say anything that would have baring on the same-sex marriage issue. suddenly, they take two issues with the broadest possible front. the question is, what are they going to do and whether they are going to reach an impasse. if there's an impasse, sometimes they go for narrow decisions. there are outs in these cases. both cases have standing issues. questions of whether these are the party that is have a right to bring this type of challenge. the standing issues are particularly prominent in the doma case. the proposition 8 case probably offers the broadest scope for a major ruling. what people, many people hope, is that that would be the case where the court says this violates equal protection. you can't deny these people the same rights of marriage. if it were to do that, then it would effectively set aside 31 state
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
. it's 2012 for pete's sake. we should all be equal by now. cheryl harris says "i think doma women get shut down quickly on solid legal grounds. prop 8 harder but kennedy will clear it up." >>> next the tug-of-war over the fiscal cliff. how much are democrats willing to give our entitlement cuts? we'll ask congressman elijah cummings that question. >>> the fight on capitol hill convinces a big powerball winner to claim his fortune now. you're watching "weekends with alex witt." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. in what world do potatoes, bacon and cheese add up to 100 calories? your world. ♪ [ whispers ] real bacon... creamy cheese... 100 calories... [ chef ] ma'am [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i tell them dentures are very different to real teeth. they're about 10 times softer and may have surface pores where bacteria can grow and multiply. polident is specifically designed to clean dentures daily. its unique micro-clean formula kills 99.9% of odor causing bacteria and helps dissolve stains, cleaning in a better way than brushing with toothpaste. that's why
. the end of the doma act. how do you see this? >> one of the first things that usually comes to my mind when i think about prop 8 was that you had the people of california, they looked at having this particular law upheld as simply because they're the ones who wanted it to happen. and the courts there decided no forget about it. it's simply not going to happen. not only that but if you remember, the donors who were supporting this law, they had a lot of people come after them during that whole scenario. also remember, a lot of businesses who whether it be say wedding photographers, wedding deejays, bank gbank get hauls wo may not be catering to same-sex marriages, they have been attacked very often by lawsuits because they may not necessarily be catering to same-sex marriages. saw this over in new mexico with elaine photography when a photographer said i don't care to photograph same-sex marriage ended up being sued. this lawsuit is still going on right now. >> jimmy williams, welcome back. just explain to me. i'm sure there's a logic to it. i always look at these things as social issue
as well, as you know, that will be overcome. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the presid
's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. if that's struck down, does that mean same-sex marriage is for all intensive purp
justices will hear cases that challenge the federal defense of merge act or doma as it's known or california's proposition 8 which defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. >>> authorities have ordered folks in parts of louisiana to get out of town as they work to secure more than 6 million pounds of gun powder. gun powder. improperly stored m-6 powder was found at camp minden on property leased by expo system. workers are busy moving the powder into authorized facilities on the site. they have safely stored more than 1 million pounds. that is enough to fill 27 18-wheelers. >> wow. nine bodies have been recovered from three crushed, burned out cars in a highway tunnel 50 miles west of tokyo. officials still don't know what caused a 200 foot section of eight inch thick concrete to cave in over the weekend. take a look at these incredible pictures. and they're not saying whether there might be more victims in the rubble. >>> malala yousafzai, that pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the taliban is saying thank you to all of her new friends all over the world.
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)